MPilot wrote:So this idea that somehow an armed English teacher is going to be equivalent to a trained police officer doesn't seem intellectually honest.

Who says that an armed English teacher would be the equivalent of a police officer? One doesn't need to know all the nuances of the law, how to arrest someone, book them into jail, etc etc etc in order to learn how to use a gun properly to defend oneself or others. And it just isn't that hard to do.

It's not the nuances of the law I'm worried about. Police learn to deal with the stress of knowing that any day they go to work they can be shot at. So they mentally prepare themselves for it.

When I go to work I'm prepared (although not exactly excited about the prospect of) dealing with an aircraft systems failure - from the benign (an inoperative NAV gauge for which I have a backup) to the more serious (engine failure). I could handle either because of good training and experience. I've been prepared for these things for a long time (and on the few unpleasant instances when something went wrong I handled it). Compare that to an amateur pilot who flies maybe 2 hours every month or two. They go up flying and their engine dies. So they panic and follow their engine into the afterlife.

The point is that these people are trained to deal with the stress of dealing with an armed confrontation. They know it's part of the job. Teachers don't. Granted some teachers could handle it better than some police officers in the same way that some amateur pilots could handle an engine failure better than an incompetent "professional". However, the odds would argue in favor of the person with more training/experience responding more swiftly and just...better.

Build a man a fire he's warm for a night. Set a man on fire he's warm for the rest of his life.

zunechced wrote:Another common element is an impulsive suburban kid or two that thinks it's reasonable to kill others and/or themselves in order to solve their first world problem. I think we need to address the problem rather than just bring in more guns. More guns will not solve anything. I will pull my kid out of school if teachers start carrying.

The bill proposes allowing faculty and administrators to carry, not the kids. It's still a ridiculous idea. More people would die in accidental shootings than actual crimes. And as others have noted, teachers and secretaries are not commandos ready to shoot it out with bad guys. The proposed bill just shows how obsessed the gun people are.

You have no data or facts to back up what you just said. The Arapahoe shooter's rampage was cut short because there was someone there with a gun to protect the kids. The only thing that supporters of this bill are obsessed with is protecting the kids. If in fact you have a better idea that liberal legislators have the courage to pass, lets hear it. the new gun laws won't and don't protect these kids.

You're right. And if teachers were really concerned about protecting the kids, they would get the training, equipment, and legislation necessary to allow them to take on that responsibility themselves.

The essence of government is when ordinary people get themselves appointed or elected to positions of power, use that power to make rules to dictate how other people must live their lives, and enforce those rules at the point of a gun.

"My hope would be that our discussions of what to do once a gunman is inside our schools transforms into how do we prevent this situation to escalate to that point," Lyles told lawmakers.

My hope would be that someday we will have legislators, school administrators, and teachers who are intelligent enough to comprehend that when they keep school staff unarmed and create a "gun free zone," they establish a 'target rich environment" that is an open invitation to the mentally unstable, who know they will have absolute power with no possibility of resistance.

The mere possibility that there might be armed teachers or staff would removed the temptation.

And what would you have done to those teachers who refuse to act as Wild West vigilantes?

I would require them to get on their knees and kiss the feet of those who are willing to be brave enough to take on the responsibility of protecting them and their students.

The essence of government is when ordinary people get themselves appointed or elected to positions of power, use that power to make rules to dictate how other people must live their lives, and enforce those rules at the point of a gun.

MPilot wrote:You know what would be a great compromise that would get guns into schools and would allow people less comfortable with the idea to be ok with it?

Just have a couple extra cops at the school as extra resource officers. We have dedicated airport police...why not dedicated school police?

One problem is that the courts have ruled on numerous occasions (Bowers v. DeVito, Lynch v. North Carolina Department of Justice, among others) that it is not the job of the police to provide protection. Their job kicks in after a crime is already committed, and not before.

Your job of your protection is yours. The job of protecting a teacher is the teacher's, and not some police officer who's patrolling the hallways.

“I'm not a dictator.” -- Barack Obama, March 2013“As a president, I can do whatever I want.” -- Barack Obama, February 2014

kelsey wrote:Can see a teacher blowing away the wrong kid. Or just having a bad day and blows away a kid to then claim self-defense as he/she feared for their life.

Police are on guard throughout there work shift. They are trained to pull their weapon. If teachers are carrying weapons they will not be ready to be involved in a tense shooting situation. They will probably shoot someone to make sure they are not sued for neglect.

MPilot wrote:So this idea that somehow an armed English teacher is going to be equivalent to a trained police officer doesn't seem intellectually honest.

Who says that an armed English teacher would be the equivalent of a police officer? One doesn't need to know all the nuances of the law, how to arrest someone, book them into jail, etc etc etc in order to learn how to use a gun properly to defend oneself or others. And it just isn't that hard to do.

It's not the nuances of the law I'm worried about. Police learn to deal with the stress of knowing that any day they go to work they can be shot at. So they mentally prepare themselves for it.

When I go to work I'm prepared (although not exactly excited about the prospect of) dealing with an aircraft systems failure - from the benign (an inoperative NAV gauge for which I have a backup) to the more serious (engine failure). I could handle either because of good training and experience. I've been prepared for these things for a long time (and on the few unpleasant instances when something went wrong I handled it). Compare that to an amateur pilot who flies maybe 2 hours every month or two. They go up flying and their engine dies. So they panic and follow their engine into the afterlife.

The point is that these people are trained to deal with the stress of dealing with an armed confrontation. They know it's part of the job. Teachers don't. Granted some teachers could handle it better than some police officers in the same way that some amateur pilots could handle an engine failure better than an incompetent "professional". However, the odds would argue in favor of the person with more training/experience responding more swiftly and just...better.

The odds would be in favor of those with more training. But that doesn't mean that it would be better if people who lack all that intensive training should remain helpless.

As I noted above, it is NOT the job of the police to protect you. That's your job. All the stress involved is quite beside the point -- you're the one who has to deal with that situation as best as you can, training or no, stressful or not. And it doesn't help matters when we have doofuses in Congress who forbid adults from having the means of defending themselves in such a situation.

“I'm not a dictator.” -- Barack Obama, March 2013“As a president, I can do whatever I want.” -- Barack Obama, February 2014

MPilot wrote:So again...I don't understand why you'd prefer to have an amateur with a gun versus someone who's trained as a police officer. Because if you're suggesting what I think you're suggesting then it would necessitate a gun in every classroom.

Scott, the man 4 houses up from us is a patrolman. He goes to the range 4 times a year to qualify - once per quarter. I go every week for fun. He has to qualify at 15 feet. I regularly practice at 100 feet? We have only gone to the range together a few times and he can't believe how I punch holes in the paper so far away. Who's the amateur? I can tell you that the average policeman would probably spray more rounds over a large area than I would.

Handgun users require constant practice to remain accurate. While Scott is a trained police officer, he is not a great shot. I certainly value his dedication and service however, I wouldn't trust him to hit an armed intruder across a room. Your average police officer is NOT a great shot.

Last edited by BillTheCatz on February 12th, 2014, 12:04 pm, edited 2 times in total.

We no longer live in the information age.We now live in the age of misinformation.

“Arguing with a liberal is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how well you play chess, the pigeon just knocks over all the pieces, soils the board, spews some unintelligible profanities, and struts around like he won.” -- Matthew Bracken

We no longer live in the information age.We now live in the age of misinformation.

toohip wrote:After watching the trial in Jacksonville about some wannabe who thinks he was defending himself against an imaginary threat, one wonders what a teacher would do with a conceal carry in the school, with a teenager acting out. We've had more "good guys with guns" shooting other "good guys with guns" or innocent by-standers then we can afford already, and this is in the public square. Now we want a wannabe good guy with a gun in our schools?

That straw man has been brought up for decades every time a state has made it easier to get concealed carry permits. Predictions of wild-west shootouts like OK Corral always come up. But what has been the result? Crime rates have dropped dramatically in states with relaxed CCPs, and crimes committed by CCP holders are extremely rare.

The essence of government is when ordinary people get themselves appointed or elected to positions of power, use that power to make rules to dictate how other people must live their lives, and enforce those rules at the point of a gun.

To sum up, our kids are far safer in the dreaded "gun free zone" of school than in any house "protected by Smith & Wesson." Why then the push for arming teachers in schools? Gun owners have every right to assess the risks of keeping firearms in their homes with children. They do not have the right to dictate that we all take those same risks by placing more firearms in schools. Oh, and if you do choose to keep a weapon in your home with children and that child uses that weapon to harm others,YOU should be liable for the consequences.

Ultimately, this is another example of the Shock Doctrine, in this case pushed by the NRA and other firearm lobbies. Rather than push for legislation to make it more difficult for the "bad guy" to obtain his gun, they stoke up the fear and then push MORE firearms as the solution.

But while they prate of economic laws, men and women are starving. We must lay hold of the fact that economic laws are not made by nature. They are made by human beings.-Franklin D. Roosevelt

zunechced wrote:Another common element is an impulsive suburban kid or two that thinks it's reasonable to kill others and/or themselves in order to solve their first world problem. I think we need to address the problem rather than just bring in more guns. More guns will not solve anything. I will pull my kid out of school if teachers start carrying.

The bill proposes allowing faculty and administrators to carry, not the kids. It's still a ridiculous idea. More people would die in accidental shootings than actual crimes. And as others have noted, teachers and secretaries are not commandos ready to shoot it out with bad guys. The proposed bill just shows how obsessed the gun people are.

You have no data or facts to back up what you just said. The Arapahoe shooter's rampage was cut short because there was someone there with a gun to protect the kids. The only thing that supporters of this bill are obsessed with is protecting the kids. If in fact you have a better idea that liberal legislators have the courage to pass, lets hear it. the new gun laws won't and don't protect these kids.

You're right. And if teachers were really concerned about protecting the kids, they would get the training, equipment, and legislation necessary to allow them to take on that responsibility themselves.

Your statement implies that teachers that are not willing to carry firearms are not concerned about protecting children. This is an INSULT to every teacher. Teachers do every thing they can to keep their children safe including placing their own bodies between the children and the threat. We see this time and again, from the Sandy Hook teachers shielding the kids, to the teachers in the Oklahoma tornadoes laying on top the children to protect them from debris, to Antoinette Tuff, the school librarian who, unarmed, faced down an AK-47 wielding would be school shooter and stopped him with WORDS.

No, the teachers that came out in droves against this proposal did so because their number one goal IS the safety of the children in their charge and they know that firearms in schools will make their children LESS safe.

But while they prate of economic laws, men and women are starving. We must lay hold of the fact that economic laws are not made by nature. They are made by human beings.-Franklin D. Roosevelt

True but, they love victims. Without victims to show off, they can't further their true agenda to deny law abiding citizens of their Constitutional rights.

These are outstanding arguments. You guys need to make the effort to get down to testify before the House Judiciary committee next time a bill like this is considered. The legislators really need to hear this important perspective.

True but, they love victims. Without victims to show off, they can't further their true agenda to deny law abiding citizens of their Constitutional rights.

Says the law abiding firearm owner. If liberals love victims, than we are madly in love with regressives. After all, to hear them tell it, they are the biggest victims of all. We big bad secular humanists progressives are attacking the poor, poor, Christians, we socialist, commies are attacking the poor, poor CEOs, hedge fund managers, investment bankers, and the other 0.01%, we radical environmentalists are attacking the poor, poor, fossil fuel industry, we supporters of the homosexual agenda are attacking the poor, poor homophobes, and of course we liberals are attacking your gun ownership. You poor, poor victims. You have convinced this liberal how sad you really are, why you need a hug.

But while they prate of economic laws, men and women are starving. We must lay hold of the fact that economic laws are not made by nature. They are made by human beings.-Franklin D. Roosevelt

True but, they love victims. Without victims to show off, they can't further their true agenda to deny law abiding citizens of their Constitutional rights.

Says the law abiding firearm owner. If liberals love victims, than we are madly in love with regressives. After all, to hear them tell it, they are the biggest victims of all. We big bad secular humanists progressives are attacking the poor, poor, Christians, we socialist, commies are attacking the poor, poor CEOs, hedge fund managers, investment bankers, and the other 0.01%, we radical environmentalists are attacking the poor, poor, fossil fuel industry, we supporters of the homosexual agenda are attacking the poor, poor homophobes, and of course we liberals are attacking your gun ownership. You poor, poor victims. You have convinced this liberal how sad you really are, why you need a hug.

True but, they love victims. Without victims to show off, they can't further their true agenda to deny law abiding citizens of their Constitutional rights.

These are outstanding arguments. You guys need to make the effort to get down to testify before the House Judiciary committee next time a bill like this is considered. The legislators really need to hear this important perspective.

If they can't get them in the womb they'll leave them undefended at elementary school.

True but, they love victims. Without victims to show off, they can't further their true agenda to deny law abiding citizens of their Constitutional rights.

These are outstanding arguments. You guys need to make the effort to get down to testify before the House Judiciary committee next time a bill like this is considered. The legislators really need to hear this important perspective.

If they can't get them in the womb they'll leave them undefended at elementary school.

troll

In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally[3][4] or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[5] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion

True but, they love victims. Without victims to show off, they can't further their true agenda to deny law abiding citizens of their Constitutional rights.

These are outstanding arguments. You guys need to make the effort to get down to testify before the House Judiciary committee next time a bill like this is considered. The legislators really need to hear this important perspective.

If they can't get them in the womb they'll leave them undefended at elementary school.

troll

In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally[3][4] or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[5] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion

Your comment is off-topic, this is about liberal lawmakers not allowing school faculty to use anything other than their own bodies to protect school children agasinst a whacko with a gun.

randybrown wrote:What an interesting hearing. After giving preferential treatment to many special interest groups, the "lawmakers" then called out names to testify. I had driven down there, and paid for 5 hour parking by the Museum and walked the distance to the Capitol. After 5 hours I gave up. They had read my first name, changed it to someone else, and I had been in my seat, waiting, for 4 1/2 hours. Then they read the list of the next 6 people to be heard, and my name was not on it. What bad luck.So, here is what I wanted to say:

Weapons in the hands of untrained teachers is a horrible idea. Let's go back in recent history to Columbine. The Denver Swat Team, the best trained SWAT team in the State at that time, had fired 163 rounds of ammunition into Columbine. A few of those rounds were fired by other police officers. With 163 rounds, they did not hit the shooters one single time. They did hit monitors, books, computers, and backpacks, and more.Does anyone actually expect a poorly trained school teacher to hit a school shooter with a bullet fired from a pistol? Really? When a dozen SWAT team members can't hit them once.

A teacher, with adrenaline running through his veins, his heartbeat at 210, and afraid, is not going to be an effective defense. Possibly a deterrent, but not a valid defense.

Instead, we need to eliminate the real reasons for school shootings, the schools themselves. Columbine was a Toxic School, with bullying, mental and physical abuse that the Principal and administration and teachers failed to stop or control.Arapahoe had the same reputation. You just won't read it on the news.

We must fix the schools first. We must stop the school abuse, take away the reason that these students develop hypervigilance, and shoot up the school because of hypervigilant revenge.We must make the schools pay attention to red flags. There were many at Columbine, and the giant red flag at Arapahoe H.S. of a student who had threatened the life of a teacher. Both the school and the Arapahoe County Sheriff are responsible for that failure.

I will be glad to offer everything I know about these dynamics, and the causes of school shootings. I have studied it for 15 years.

You cannot stop a school shooter with heroics once they are in the school. It has not happened in any school shooting. You can stop the school shooter before they get to the school, by taking away their anger, by listening to them and giving them a voice, and by responding to red flags that they exhibit. Not in every case, but in most.

Stop them before they get to the school, because even one death at a school shooting is too many.

There, I finally got my 30 seconds.I feel better.

Randy BrownA Columbine Parent.

Still seeking a one size fits all solution like Tom Mauser I see. The problem is we can do all we want to stop them before they get to the school but the real damage is done at the school. The last line of defense should never be to hope the shooter misses.

That said this got far more hearing time than the passage of the unconstitutional gun bills that were passed last legislative session.